plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20673 stories
·
19 followers

Having the ladder pulled up on you isn't a mental health condition - Newsroom

1 Share

Comment: A recent run of media stories has focused on young people’s despondency about the future. In one story, a young woman talked about the hopelessness felt by her generation, not having clear career pathways, struggling to put food on the table, and distress about climate change. She linked these problems to the mental health crisis and called for more government funding to support mental health.

Her comments highlight another problem: we have entered an era where the vocabulary of mental health is used to highlight and propose solutions to most of our problems.

But if unemployment and climate change are causing anxiety for young people, is it better to spend money on mental health? Or on climate change, job creation, and the cost of living? If we focus on the source of worry (e.g. the warming climate), rather than on worry itself, we find different potential solutions and different outcomes.

The Danish psychologist Svend Brinkmann hit the nail on the head when he wrote about the “languages of suffering”. We can talk about our troubles in many different ways, he wrote, and the way we choose will determine not only the vocabularies available, but also the explanations and potential solutions.

In other words, it matters – and matters deeply – whether the distress felt by people is talked about as a psychological, moral, existential, or political problem.

The mental health awareness movement has helped teach us to look out for ourselves and one another, and that it’s okay to ask for help. But there’s also been an unintended outcome. Rather than just being aware of the potential to support mental illness, we’ve begun to translate other problems into mental health ones.

The go-to position is to default to a psychological language and its associated treatments for what ails us. Normal emotional responses to injustice, inequity, and abandonment are seen as some sort of psychological disorder.

This “pathologisation” – the treatment of something normal as abnormal – is linked by its logic to a particular remedy (counselling, or psychological and psychiatric intervention), which overloads a slender system designed to look after serious psychological disorders. It’s also the wrong strategy.

By psychologising what is arguably a normal response to an abnormal situation, ‘mental health’ becomes an ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff approach. We attend to the impact of a social problem, rather than to the problem itself.

It would make much more sense to talk about our problems using other vocabularies.

Brinkmann uses the case of the “work stress epidemic” to illustrate the difference between talking about problems with the language of mental health versus the language of politics.

Discussing work stress as a mental health problem can lead us down a path of offering individual employees access to counselling services to help them “de-stress”. Feeling strung-out because the boss is asking you to work unreasonable hours? Here’s a freephone number to talk to a therapist.

Brinkmann points out we could instead talk about unreasonable workplace conditions using “a political language of rights and duties, social justice and injustice”. When people are treated unjustly at work or anywhere else, expressing disapproval in political language is a valid response, he says.

And this, he argues, was what used to happen: “Detrimental work conditions were once something to be dealt with politically and collectively – centred on the work of unions.”

The same political language of rights and duties, justice and injustice could be applied to any one of a number of problems we face in Aotearoa.

Using a political language rather than a mental health one, we could look at the pressures facing university students. Referred to as the “anxious generation” with growing concerns for their stress levels and psychological wellbeing, we support them to develop tools for “resilience” and “buoyancy” as if each individual could simply strengthen their “top two inches” to overcome what are actually structural and economic constraints.

What used to be a free education system now costs thousands of dollars a year. This accompanies increased costs of rent, food, and heating. So, students rush from study to university to work, trying to make instant noodles feel like a meal and worrying about the accumulation of debt they will carry into a job market that is increasingly restricted. The mental health focus makes it plainly their problem. Develop your tools! No wonder they are under pressure.

But what if we deployed a political language instead?

Rather than seeing this generation as slowly melting snowflakes in need of “tools”, an argument could be mounted that university education should be funded as fully as it was for most of the politicians who have pulled up the ladder behind them. And that the young people of today should be given the same educational opportunities as these decision-making MPs enjoyed to be the leaders of tomorrow.  

Instead of offering “tools” to help students cope, a political argument would point out the inter-generational inequity resulting from ever-rising tertiary fees and haggle for redistribution of opportunities. It would also raise wider political questions about how we fund tertiary education and whether this is best done through general taxes or student fees.

When we default to the language of mental health to find solutions to our problems, we risk missing the chance to debate these wider political questions and to find an array of potential solutions, rather than just a sticking-plaster solution for each individual.

Importantly, and we mustn’t forget this either, by leaving the language of mental health for problems for which psychological or psychiatric help is the correct solution, we acknowledge that other issues are not “in our heads” or the problem of a sensitive younger generation. They are social, political, and structural problems that concern us all.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
19 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

The Surveillance Society Is Here Courtesy Of Private Enterprise

1 Share

In China they have cameras everywhere. I’m not a fan, but by most accounts the government doesn’t abuse this power much and it has made Chinese cities far safer. (If you want to argue they do abuse the power a lot, please look at incarceration per capita in China compared to the US. China seems to suck at police stateing. Yes, I know that’s not a word, but this is my blog and I’m going to use it anyway!)

In the US it’s flock cameras. They’re everywhere it seems.

The network currently is mostly about license plate readers, but the cameras are being expanded (no facial recognition yet, but I’d lay long odds they have it soon.)

Flock has recently expanded into other technologies, including advanced cameras that monitor more than just vehicles. Most concerning are the latest Flock drones equipped with high-powered cameras. Flock’s “Drone as First Responder” platform automates drone operations, including launching them in response to 911 calls or gunfire. Flock’s drones, which reach speeds up to 60 mph, can follow vehicles or people and provide information to law enforcement.

The key thing here is that police can get this data easily, without a warrant. Even if you’re smart enough to leave your phone at home, pretty soon they’ll be able to track everything you do. This data will be stored, and if it’s ever time to get you, they will have years of data. What was innocuous at the time (that organization wasn’t on the watch list when you were involved) can be used against you, especially since America’s laws are so labyrinthine that practically everyone has committed something a prosecutor could call a crime.

And the idea that only police will have access to the data is laughable.

Trust America to create a panopticon which is worse than a government controlled one. Not only does the government get your 24/7 activities, but so can corporations and connected rich people.

God bless the Free market.

Old timers will know I used to write a lot about the coming surveillance society. Well, it’s pretty close to her. Less than five years, I’d guess, and anonymity will be essentially totally gone. Welcome to fishbowl world.

I also wrote many years ago that I’d know people were getting serious about freedom when they started destroying surveillance cameras, and there’s some signs of that:

A sliver of a silver lining, but better than nothing.

As for China, the CPC may be using this mostly responsibly, but it’s a loaded gun waiting to picked up when the government turns tyrannical and if history tells us anything it’s that over a hundred years or so, that’s almost guaranteed.

A surveilled world may be safer in some ways, but the price is significant.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

The Only Thing That Matters Is Winning Primaries

1 Share

From Stoller:

Last night, something happened that I’ve never seen in my time in politics – a bunch of Democratic incumbent politicians in New York and Maryland lost to left-wing challengers. New York in particular has an intensely wired Democratic machine, with advocacy groups, unions, and identity rights groups cemented together with big money. This machine rarely loses, and never loses en masse. Yesterday, they did, as voters said no to the entire political establishment.

The winners mostly ran on a platform of opposition to the U.S. alliance with Israel, as well as subordinate themes like opposition to corporate greed. For instance, Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president and a well-respected establishment figure with virtually every endorsement possible from both liberal groups and real estate interests, lost to Democratic Socialist Claire Valdez by more than 25 percentage points. Adriano Espaillat, the head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, was unseated by fellow DSA member Darializa Avila Chevalier. State assembly incumbents lost, and both the state and Federal delegation are now far more progressive.

The New York machine, in other words, got wrecked.

I came out of the netroots: the blogosphere. We had a motto “more and better democrats” but every time we tried to primary some shitheel Democrat, we got wrecked.

We didn’t have the juice.

And in American politics the most important thing is whether you can win primaries. In a duopoly, even if your candidate loses the general this time, they’ll eventually back into power if the district is competitive. If it’s not competitive, and the party you can win elections in is the shoe in, well, it’s the same as winning the election.

The reason the populist right has been pandered to by Republicans on many issues (but not corporate governance) is that they can win primaries.

The reason Kathy Hochui kept her implicit deal with Mamdani and has given him money for New York and other help is that Mamdani is a powerhouse and a bellweather. Opposing him would mean he and the movement he is the standard bearer for would have come for her next.

This is localized so far, but if it spreads the Democratic party will change. And unlike the Republican right, which can be bought off with culture war bullshit, this a left wing populist movement which is explicitly anti-oligarchy. Mamdani has been very successful so far, coming thru on many of his promises. I recently saw someone earning six figures say that Mamdani’s childcare plan had saved him 30K. That’s not chump change and it dwarfs anything the well off, but not rich, will lose from Mamdani’s other changes. In other words the 80% to 95% benefit, as does everyone under 80%.

That is one one hell of a big coalition.

Democrats and Republicans, since Reagan, have largely refused to compete on doing things for ordinary Americans: at least anything pocket book related. The competition has all been kabuki, symbolic gestures or cultural red meat. Some of it has really hurt people, to be sure (abortion bans for example) but overall the idea has been that money should be given to the rich and programs which help ordinary people’s finances are a no go.

Since the US is a duopoly and you only get to vote for two options, neither of which intend to help, the only solution was to change the nature of one of the parties.

That has now begun. How far it will go and whether it will succeed, I do not know.

I do know that if it does, the Democrats will rule for another 50 years, like they did from 32 to 80. Republicans will get in sometimes, but they will be like Eisenhower: ruling in a populist left fashion. The mirror of Clinton or Obama, who in most respects might as well have been Republicans. They were certainly arch-neoliberals.

This is your moment of actual hope. Not the fake Obama stuff, the real thing. It’s not certain, of course, there is a ton of power opposing it, but it is real hope.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

America is destroying itself. It’s no surprise | Stephen Marche | The Guardian

1 Share

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has arrived at a moment of some embarrassment for the Republic. The United States of America, established to overthrow a mad king, has elected, 250 years later, a mad king of its very own. America is setting itself on fire at its birthday party. It always had a dramatic streak.

In 30 or 40 years, scholars of history, if they exist, will want to know how the richest country in history, with the world’s most powerful alliance network, and a scientific and research capacity fuelled by the talent of the world, chose to throw it all away.

I have been closer than most to some kind of answer. For my book The Next Civil War, I interviewed hundreds of experts, trying to fathom the underlying causes and structures of the decline. I met with extremists on the left and right. I argued that the dark dawning was coming. And yet, in some part of me, I didn’t really believe they would do it. The American self-destruction, I can only inform those future historians, is a mystery to us, too.

When did it all go wrong? Most of the researchers into political collapse that I spoke to blamed 2008, the financial crisis that crippled the dream of social mobility, but others brought up 1980, when income inequality first spiked and trust in institutions began to crater, and yet others 1876, the end of reconstruction, and those with even longer memories back to the civil war, or to the War of 1812.

But that was before Trump 2. It’s become obvious, since he took office again, that the crisis America currently faces has been there from the beginning.

From the beginning, the most intelligent Americans understood that their origin contained, within itself, the seeds of its own destruction. George Washington’s Farewell Address predicted, with startling precision, the hyperpartisanship currently ripping apart the nation he founded.

Abraham Lincoln prophesied: “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher … as a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.” His prophecy has come true.

The semiquincentennial is an opportunity to reconsider the American project, and not just because it has provoked a reconsideration of the revolution itself. The American experiment has ended, and the beginning must offer at least some clue to its ending.

Like those of any creation myth, the details of the Revolution are fuzzy but the impressions indelible. A boy stands beside a hack-down cherry tree. A man rides through the dark, waking villagers. Men hurl tea into a harbor. Women stitch stars into a flag. The events surrounding the revolution exist half in a dream space. History bleeds into the shades of myth.

One of the earliest signals of the sudden and rapid American decline has been the intellectual whiplash of its understanding of its own history. During the grand iconoclasm of 2020, mostly devoted to the desecration of civil war generals, protesters also tore down statues of Jefferson and Washington.

In response to the radical critique of US history, both Florida and Texas have rewritten their school curricula on the revolution, to promote more conservative viewpoints. In Florida, they have called their alternative to AP history the Florida Advanced Courses and Tests, or Fact, proving that somebody still has a sense of humor.

Its vision of the founding focuses on “American civilization, as well as its deep roots in English and, more broadly, Western civilization”, which is a bit rich. If you wanted English civilization, you wouldn’t have become Americans in the first place. But agenda-driven histories of the revolution, on both left and right, shouldn’t be taken seriously as an account or a reckoning. They’re vibes: America’s, like, gross. Or, America’s, like, the best.

There have been works of more substantial history to coincide with the 250th anniversary. Ken Burns’ The American Revolution is of the same quality and depth as any of his other documentaries but less satisfying. In his works on the civil war and jazz and baseball, he expanded and informed the broad strokes of widely known histories with vivid detail and rich storytelling. But the revolution is so mythical already that learning what it was actually like diminishes it somehow.

In his telling, the founders weren’t heroes. They weren’t monsters. They were men in the mess of history, a stew of ideals and venality and interests, living in the middle of situations and mixed loyalties and physical necessities. They committed brutalities occasionally. They shone with bravery occasionally. They were stupid occasionally. They were brilliant occasionally.

Burns bares the contradictions of the revolution, but they’ve already been well established. The founders’ love of liberty derived, directly, from their practice of slavery. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence while a valet who was the son of his slave and his father-in-law served him tea. “The crisis is arrived when we must assert our rights,” George Washington wrote, “or submit to every imposition that can be heaped upon us, till custom and use shall make us as tame and abject slaves, as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway.”

The American Revolution began with propertied men desiring no limit on their property, but it was fought mostly by men who owned nothing. The Revolution was a civil war as much as a struggle for liberation. Benjamin Franklin’s son was a loyalist.

But this was all well-established if not well-known. The revolution contained contradictions, just as the United States contains multitudes. What was unique in the founding of the United States was neither the violence nor the idealism. It was the capacity to turn the violence and the idealism into a mythology. The most revolutionary effect of American independence was that it created a sense of the United States as a unique country, an exception to history.

Whatever viewpoint an American takes on the revolution, left or right, it guarantees the conclusion that the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world. Even when Americans say they don’t believe it, they believe it.

American exceptionalism runs deeper than belief. It’s ingrained, bred in the bone. There is no America without American exceptionalism

American exceptionalism runs deeper than belief. It’s ingrained, bred in the bone. There is no America without American exceptionalism. And that exceptionalism began in the revolution.

The United States increasingly feels like a country overwhelmed by history, smothered by a past it can neither face nor overcome. As the US has declined, politically, economically, socially, culturally, it has turned back to its origin more than ever before, in a doomed quest to retain its conviction of its exceptionality.

At no point has America ever been more backward-looking. A recent Pew Research poll found that 59% of Americans believe its best years are behind it. And this is not some vague sense in the air. The distant American past, rather than the American future, is increasingly the basis of its political structure. The most pronounced, and most lasting, legacy of the Trump years is that it has turned originalism into the dominant framework of the American legal system.

The warping of its politics as a result of nostalgia has been extraordinary. Since Bruen, the decision in which the supreme court applied a historical standard to the second amendment, or the “nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation”, US courts have been flooded with arguments, fundamentally unanswerable, about views of guns from 250 years ago.

That, of course, is only the beginning of the absurdities. They have also allowed racial gerrymandering to return. That, too, is a reflection of the national origin: gerrymandering was invented by Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts and founding father.

Donald Trump is the ultimate nostalgia act. I mean, they call it “make America great again” for a reason. Trump’s violation of political norms must be understood as fully consistent with a revolutionary country in which patriotism was determined, from the beginning, by the violent overthrow of established order.

“There’s a lot of people out there calling for the end of violence ... who say that any violence or aggression at all is unacceptable regardless of the circumstances.” Rush Limbaugh said this after January 6. He continued: “I am glad Sam Adams ... Thomas Paine ... the actual tea party guys ... the men at Lexington and Concord, didn’t feel that way.” The elected officials the rioters attacked have come to agree with their attackers. In the “anti-weaponization fund” Trump sought to create, which could have rewarded the latter-day rebels, he symbolically chose $1.776bn dollars as the total.

Here’s the thing about Trump. Nobody can say that he is un-American. He is all too American. Burns’ retelling of the revolution is clarifying: The motives of the revolution, so clouded over in the mists of Enlightenment idealism, were grounded in more or less pure greed. The crown had halted continental expansion over the Appalachian mountains; it had attempted to ban speculation and trade in lands which it considered to belong, by right, to Indigenous people.

After the Seven Years’ war, which had made North America British, the Empire was financially exhausted. The British subject paid 26 shillings of tax to one shilling of the colonists. That one was too much. The other harbinger of the revolution was the glee of mobs. Tarring and feathering of British officials was a grand amusement. The movement from subject to citizen was, as the documentary says, “a spectacle of violence”.

“Grab’em by the pussy” is perfectly consistent with the spirit of the revolution, every bit as much as “all men are created equal.” The founding fathers felt entitled to something for nothing, for work without paying for it. They humiliated and degraded anyone who objected.

The Americans are slouching back to their origin. Greed and spectacles of punishment define them.

Americans aren’t addicted to liberty itself, but the sense of liberation, the throwing off of shackles. They get high on it. The revolution rendered mobs overthrowing, by violence, political authority an explicit political good, the foundational political good. And it is pure poison. It is the American poison.

They are drinking their own poison. They are drinking it all the way down. And they’re dying of it.

American exceptionalism continues unabated. They still go about lecturing the world, claiming that their military’s sport killing is an activation of moral right. The United States’s entire foreign policy as a superpower, from the end of the second world war on, can be reduced to a single line from an officer during the Tet offensive in Vietnam: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

As the Americans return to their origin, to their primal urge, they are losing themselves. In a kind of atavistic dissolution, the originalists are rendering the constitution increasingly meaningless. The icons are desecrated. They paint over the granite of the reflecting pool. They have torn down the White House all on their own; the British didn’t need to burn it.

  • Stephen Marche is the host of the podcast Gloves Off

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Why European cities keep failing to fight overtourism | The European Correspondent

1 Share

  • Cities keep passing measures against overtourism, yet tourist numbers rise anyway. Why is that?

Understand how Europe is changing in graphs, charts, and maps.
What has the EU ever done for for us?
Our best, timeless journalism
How Germany's economy missed the train to the future.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

A US ambassador turned police on an activist, then on me | The European Correspondent

1 Share

  • Cities keep passing measures against overtourism, yet tourist numbers rise anyway. Why is that?

Understand how Europe is changing in graphs, charts, and maps.
What has the EU ever done for for us?
Our best, timeless journalism
How Germany's economy missed the train to the future.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories